https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363007 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the demand for payment of a percentage of the value of traded goods due to the appellants not filing a declaration under Rule 6(3A). It held that the requirement of filing a declaration was procedural and not mandatory, citing precedents. The Tribunal also found that demands raised invoking the extended period were baseless as the department was aware of the credit availed on common input services for trading activities. The appeals were successful on both merits and limitation grounds. en-us Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Jul 2018 06:44:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363007 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the demand for payment of a percentage of the value of traded goods due to the appellants not filing a declaration under Rule 6(3A). It held that the requirement of filing a declaration was procedural and not mandatory, citing precedents. The Tribunal also found that demands raised invoking the extended period were baseless as the department was aware of the credit availed on common input services for trading activities. The appeals were successful on both merits and limitation grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363007